Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010104892026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./769/2026 MOKHLES ALI ALIAS MD MOKLES ALI AND 4 ORS. S/O-MD. ABDUL AZIZ ALIAS ABDUL AJIJ. 2: MD ABDUL AZIZ ALIAS ABDUL AJIJ S/O-MAMURUDDIN SHEIKH 3: MANJILA BIBI W/O- MD. ABDUL AZIZ ALIAS ABDUL AJIJ. 4: MOJINUL HOQUE S/O-MD. ABDUL AZIZ ALIAS ABDUL AJIJ. 5: RENIFA BEGUM W/O- MOJINUL HOQUE ALL ARE VILL-MESKARJHAR PART-I P.S.- ABHAYAPURI DIST-BONGAIGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM 2:MUSSTT INISA BIBI (INFORMANT) W/O-SURAT JAMAL SK 3:SURMINA KHATUN VICTIM D/O-SURAT JAMAL SK BOTH ARE VILL-BANGALDOBA PART-II P.O- DHANTOLA P.S DIST-KOKRAJHAR. ASSAM PIN-78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR. M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MD. A HUSSAIN(R2,3) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. A. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 & 3. 2. By this application filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are five in numbers have prayed for quashing and setting aside of the FIR, registered vide Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 368/2022, under Sections 363/376(3)/324 IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioners have also challenged the Charge-sheet submitted in pursuant to the said case on 28.02.2026 and subsequent proceeding of Special POCSO Case No 20/2026, pending before the learned Addl. District & Session Judge No. 2, Kokrajhar. 3. The main ground for quashing of the said FIR, the charge-sheet as well as the Special POCSO Case is on the settlement reached between the informant and the petitioners. It is the case of the Petitioner that, an FIR was lodged on 05.08.2022, by the mother of the victim, stating inter alia that on 27.07.2022 at around 9:30 AM, Accused No. 1, i.e., the petitioner No. 1 had seduced her minor daughter, aged about 17 years and took her to an unknown place, wherein, he detained her and raped her. It was also stated that the petitioners took her to their house, assaulted her and that petitioner No. 5, had also assaulted her daughter. Pursuant to the said FIR, the police investigated the case and Page No.# 3/5 submitted the Charge-sheet on 28.02.2026, arraying all the petitioners as accused persons. Thereafter, on completion of all the procedures, the case was committed to the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kokrajhar, and the trial had commenced. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, after 3 months of laying of the charge-sheet, an affidavit was sworn in by the informant, i.e., mother of the victim, stating inter alia that she lodged the FIR due to misunderstanding and that the petitioner No. 1, and her daughter, i.e. the victim were in love relationship and that on the particular date her daughter had eloped with petitioner no. 1, with a view to solemnize their marriage. She further stated that, after recovery of her daughter, she upon asking her was apprised that her daughter had eloped with the petitioner No. 1, only with the hope of getting married. Thereafter, she further stated that her daughter had got married with another person and is living a happy conjugal life with her husband and that neither her daughter nor she is interested to proceed further with the case and that the continuance of the case would cause prejudiced to her family life. 5. The learned counsel has also placed the order of bail, wherein, it was stated that bail was granted on the ground that a settlement has been reached between the petitioner No.1 and the victim. As such, the learned counsel submits that the case be closed for the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Sarma, the learned APP for the State, submits that the offence in the instant case relates not only to the offences under the BNS but also under the POCSO Act in as much as, Section 6 of POCSO Act was attracted. He however, Page No.# 4/5 submits in his usual fairness that, if there are no chances of conviction of the accused persons or that the trial would result in causing hardship and prejudice to the party concerned, the same can be quashed as has been held by the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 & 3; had conceded to the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and had stated that the affidavit has been sworn in by respondent No. 2 and that the matter has been settled between the parties and also that respondent no. 3 is married to another person and she is happily living with her husband and the continuance of the case would cause hardship to her. 8. I have heard the counsels and have gone through the records. It is a settled position of law, that cases which are predominantly of private nature, such as, matrimonial dispute or civil dispute where the society at large is not affected can be quashed by the Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court in so many cases, one being “Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Kamur Vs. State of Gujarat” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, that although cases of heinous nature cannot be compromised on the settlement reached between the parties but cases of private nature can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of inherent power. The Supreme Court has also held that, if it is seen that continuance of case would cause hardship and prejudice to the party concerned and there is no likelihood that the accused person would be convicted, the same can be quashed for the ends of Justice. In the instant case, it is seen that, the mother of the victim had sworn the affidavit and had stated therein that she upon asking the victim, the victim told her that she eloped with petitioner no.1, only with the hope to get married and that, when the affidavit Page No.# 5/5 was sworn in, the mother of the victim stated that, the victim already got married with another person and that continuance of the case will cause hardship not only to the victim but also to her family members. 9. 9. As such, this Court finds it fit to quash the case registered against the Petitioner No. 1 as well as his relatives for the ends of justice. Accordingly, the FIR being registered as Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 368/2022 as well as the Charge- sheet being Charge-sheet No. 26/26, dated 22.08.2026 as well as the proceeding initiated vide Special (POCSO) Case No. 20/2026 as well as the subsequent orders passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 2, Kokrajhar stands quashed. 10. The petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant